No, not from your quote, which I hadn't cited. From Hastings' haphazard rant pegging everything from feral children urinating outside pubs to mothers pressuring their daughters into prostitution on the existence of a welfare state. Which doesn't exactly invite a searching, thoughtful critique. Although to be fair to him, he only uses the phrase once ("those at the bottom of society behave no better than their forebears, but the welfare state has relieved them from hunger and real want") and I don't think it's necessarily clear that he intended welfare checks to be the focus of his scorn, as opposed to more recent debates about the scope of parental responsibility and classroom discipline. Like I said in my response to oscar, welfare reform is a whole different debate from the accusation that the welfare state 'created' the underclass.

The conditions of poorhouses are appalling and inhumane to present sensibilities, but the institution can't just be waved away as the stupid and cruel excesses of a less enlightened time--much of modern thought on how economic inequality develops and might be countered in industrialized societies emerged from centuries of legislative debate over their aims, funding and structure. Obviously, I was joking about bringing them back, but the point certainly wasn't that that's what Hastings/you/oscar secretly want to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earnie Shavers

Somehow, that American "one day I'll be that guy" Dream seems to keep that all in check. The belief in that, the aspiration, seems to somehow manage that situation. The good 'underclass' of the US haven't figured out that it's bullshit. You'll never be that guy, you don't stand a fucking chance, the system is absolutely built against you. The 'underclass' in the UK have no such illusions.

Eh...I dunno about that. I'm not in a position to generalize about the outlook of the urban 'underclass' (and granted, 'underclass' is an imprecisely defined term), however the corner of the South I grew up in is often dubbed 'America's largest rural ghetto' by sociologists, and I'd feel fairly comfortable characterizing the outlook of its longterm-poor/un(der)employed population as resigned, defeatist, and insular. Most seldom vote or otherwise participate in civic engagement. Obviously, different from inner-city poverty in all kinds of ways--not as much violent crime (though it's far from bucolic), less anonymity (so, I guess, less 'alienation'...though the redneck contingent in particular always seemed pretty damn alienated to me), etc.--but I really doubt level of investment in the American Dream is one of them.

Maybe the difference between the US and UK is less one of degree of 'isolation' than that race divides still overshadow class divides in the American mind.

And heads up to purpleoscar and Indy - this is from a decent conservative columnist in a decent conservative leaning paper. Go to the Telegraph (unfortunately the Times is behind a paywall) for smart/sensible conservative views on all this, not the Daily Mail.

I like this linking of the crimes of the bottom end with the crimes of the top end, and I think there are far more interesting questions or realisations or events coming in that regard, not just here, but everywhere. I do think there is something far larger that links everything from the Arab Spring to the Tea Party to WikiLeaks and Anonymous type stuff to the Murdoch take down to the banker anger to the wonky 'hung' elections in both the UK and Australia (and the very strong 'change' election in the US, with, no doubt, the most heated and fractious election season in a generation about to kick off) and general, complete loss of faith in politics through to the growing realisation in some cases that political systems are perhaps irreparably broken in more ways than one, to anti-corporate anger, to a rising anti-commercial/commodity feeling, to street riots of varying degree and varying legitimacy all over the place. For another thread or whatever, but I think what we were calling an Information Revolution at the turn of this century is actually only just beginning to live up to it's name.

And heads up to purpleoscar and Indy - this is from a decent conservative columnist in a decent conservative leaning paper. Go to the Telegraph (unfortunately the Times is behind a paywall) for smart/sensible conservative views on all this, not the Daily Mail.

I like this linking of the crimes of the bottom end with the crimes of the top end, and I think there are far more interesting questions or realisations or events coming in that regard, not just here, but everywhere. I do think there is something far larger that links everything from the Arab Spring to the Tea Party to WikiLeaks and Anonymous type stuff to the Murdoch take down to the banker anger to the wonky 'hung' elections in both the UK and Australia (and the very strong 'change' election in the US, with, no doubt, the most heated and fractious election season in a generation about to kick off) and general, complete loss of faith in politics through to the growing realisation in some cases that political systems are perhaps irreparably broken in more ways than one, to anti-corporate anger, to a rising anti-commercial/commodity feeling, to street riots of varying degree and varying legitimacy all over the place. For another thread or whatever, but I think what we were calling an Information Revolution at the turn of this century is actually only just beginning to live up to it's name.

oh yeah i saw this one when it was posted on the Guardian late last night... have to say i really liked what he wrote, but felt he got a bit bunny hugging at the end though... although i guess practical solutions/suggestions are hard to come by right now... (eta: oops just realised you said in your post the last paragraphs were crap lol!! yeah i think apart from that he made some really good points)...

yep i definitely believe it is all interconnected as well... Information Revolution, yeah... people seem to be waking up all over and smelling the coffee...

And heads up to purpleoscar and Indy - this is from a decent conservative columnist in a decent conservative leaning paper. Go to the Telegraph (unfortunately the Times is behind a paywall) for smart/sensible conservative views on all this, not the Daily Mail.

It's a good article (I don't like tax dodgers either) but I definitely don't get much of a solution to the problem in this. What I feel is the problem is that people are trying to say that two wrongs make a right. If rioters loot then it's okay since there are rich tax dodgers. If the taxes weren't so high there would be less tax dodging and maybe if we punished criminals (including white collar criminals) there would be more morality displayed. Yet to do that we would have to go more conservative than David Cameron by a mile.

Don't forget that these riots were started because of austerity measures to control the deficit, not becuase rich guys like tax cheating. It sounds too much like a scapegoat distraction to cover up the cause and effect of what happened. If David Cameron wants to control the deficit then he's already better than the Labour party.

No, not from your quote, which I hadn't cited. From Hastings' haphazard rant pegging everything from feral children urinating outside pubs to mothers pressuring their daughters into prostitution on the existence of a welfare state. Which doesn't exactly invite a searching, thoughtful critique. Although to be fair to him, he only uses the phrase once ("those at the bottom of society behave no better than their forebears, but the welfare state has relieved them from hunger and real want") and I don't think it's necessarily clear that he intended welfare checks to be the focus of his scorn, as opposed to more recent debates about the scope of parental responsibility and classroom discipline. Like I said in my response to oscar, welfare reform is a whole different debate from the accusation that the welfare state 'created' the underclass.

The conditions of poorhouses are appalling and inhumane to present sensibilities, but the institution can't just be waved away as the stupid and cruel excesses of a less enlightened time--much of modern thought on how economic inequality develops and might be countered in industrialized societies emerged from centuries of legislative debate over their aims, funding and structure. Obviously, I was joking about bringing them back, but the point certainly wasn't that that's what Hastings/you/oscar secretly want to do.

Secret agenda . The article is clear that welfare compounded with political correctness in dealing with bad behaviour equals what we got today. Nothing secret. Punish more and make welfare temporary. We don't have to go back to Dickens. BTW the 1800s was actually when the industrial revolution was going at full tilt. There are other points of view of that time which include many getting out of poverty and a rising middleclass. It wasn't all bad during that time. We don't have to ignore some of the social changes that occurred to make it better, but we shouldn't be afraid to scale back what doesn't work. If there are social programs that dovetail each other they should be amalgamated, and if there are excessive benefits for government workers that the private sector (which doesn't have those benefits) has to pay then they should be curtailed. I also include politicians in this as well. If doing these sensible things is extreme right wing then we are in a paralysis which will lead to bankruptcy.

It's a good article (I don't like tax dodgers either) but I definitely don't get much of a solution to the problem in this. What I feel is the problem is that people are trying to say that two wrongs make a right. If rioters loot then it's okay since there are rich tax dodgers. If the taxes weren't so high there would be less tax dodging and maybe if we punished criminals (including white collar criminals) there would be more morality displayed. Yet to do that we would have to go more conservative than David Cameron by a mile.

Don't forget that these riots were started because of austerity measures to control the deficit, not becuase rich guys like tax cheating. It sounds too much like a scapegoat distraction to cover up the cause and effect of what happened. If David Cameron wants to control the deficit then he's already better than the Labour party.

I don't think it's really trying to find solutions to the problem, it's merely talking to more macro level questions about morality, society, priorities etc. That an element of what is rotten at the core of our 'society' is certainly not limited to that demographic, signs of that rot are found all up and down. And it's certainly not suggesting that two wrongs make a right or anything. And the tax debate... is going on elsewhere.

I'm kinda surprised you buy the 'because of austerity measures' line, which is only being pushed by a few political point scorers on the left. It's really mostly irrelevant. A debate about whether certain services should be or should have been cut or financially strangled is relevant in light of all of this, but it's certainly not *because* of austerity measures, ie *about* austerity measures. The cuts are only really directly relevant in regards to how they're already biting at the police, so in relation to their ineffective initial response to all of this. The kids, really, had no politics in mind, were raging against no specific policy or issue, and were simply just fuckwits who saw an opportunity for a bit of 'fun' smashing and grabbing. The article is questioning why that attitude exists, and it's suggesting that morality free 'looting' of a community, due to a disconnect from the community, isn't limited to this bunch.

Very strong show of force in my 'hood this evening. Just walked past this scene down the road - very fancy bar/restaurant with an outside drinking/dining area next to a pretty park, lots of 'suits' sipping on cocktails and pints, and next to them... two parked good-to-handle-petrol-bombs riot vans and about 15-20 fully geared up riot police milling around. Looks weird, to say the least.

And heads up to purpleoscar and Indy - this is from a decent conservative columnist in a decent conservative leaning paper. Go to the Telegraph (unfortunately the Times is behind a paywall) for smart/sensible conservative views on all this, not the Daily Mail.